I'm amazed that in this instance the American military mangs are terrible because they are so gung-ho for international accountability.

I guess pre-Age of Ultron having New York pancaked and all the other crazy superhuman events occur primarily in the US made them change their mind about unilateralism and so global cooperation's more acceptable nowadays?

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

In my opinion the proliferation of high technology and enhanced beings would complicate, but not invalidate, this reality. It calls for an adaptable and quick clearance system, not for no clearance system at all.

Yup. This is what I mean by 'i agree with oversight but not what we saw in the movie'. If this system set up was reasonable then cool. Another reason not to railroad it over the Avengers in 2 days and expect them to read and understand what looks like a few hundred pages at least of legalise and expect them to sign up to the legal binding consequences.

I acknowledge his motivations but still conclude he did the wrong thing. Even if we assume the team they sent after Bucky was going to just execute him on the spot regardless of circumstances, Rogers didn't just save his friend (who, by the way, is a legendary international assassin with a crazy bodycount and a head full of HYDRA secrets), he saved his friend and ran.

Nitpick. Bucky was running. Steve was chasing and trying to stop Black Panther from killing him.

But he doesn't do any of that: he throws a fit (and I do really stand by that characterization) after Stark lets slip that Wanda is confined to the Avengers compound because of the situation he is now himself knee deep in.

I say again: what the fuck did Steve Rogers expect to happen? Did he even think about the situation at all? Did he stop for even one second to consider the consequences of his actions?

By throwing a fit you mean. Refuse the compromise and then apparently resign himself to the consequences? He only starts shit in the compound when it's clear Zemo is up to something.

He is a horrible snarky piece of shit in that scene though. The lend lease/war profiteering bit was pointless dickery. He still was willing to compromise to an extent though.

What I see here is Steve Rogers trying to do the thing he just did that didn't work out, again. Except this time he also ropes in his friends and makes international criminals out of them. Sound strategy there, Captain. By now he really should have realized he's going about this the wrong way. It's only when he's made a wanted man out of himself and gets cornered by the remaining Avengers that he tries talking. And lo, Tony Stark actually engages with him: come in, we'll figure this out and respond appropriately. But no, Captain America makes a fight out of it, again. It's his way or the highway, which doesn't work out for him, again, and he's ultimately forced to flee. And even though Rhodes was badly injured and he has plenty reason to be pissed way the fuck off by Rogers' frankly erratic behaviour, Tony Stark tries to salvage the situation by reasoning with him, again.

I don't remember Stark engaging with him at the airport. He shouts him down when he tries to explain about Zemo. And then says 'you're going to come with us because it's us that's asking.' That's about it. And Steve is operating under time constraints here. He can't wait to sort it out with Tony or wait for evidence to turn up or loose time because Zemos already on the way to the supersoldiers.

This is the exactly situation we give movie heroes license to break the rules.

To concede Tony clearly listened a bit because when Zemo leaks evidence that Bucky was framed he immediately switched sides.

It's only when the final insult comes out - that Steve Rogers knew that Bucky Barnes killed Stark's parents and kept his mouth shut about it, that Tony Stark finally loses his shit and lays into him.

Yup. Again, I find this totally understandable on both sides. (When's a good time to tell someone your best friend murdered their parents.)

And to Tony's very great credit. In the ensuing fight, he's still holding well the hell back as far as Steve's concern. He engages Steve with minimum force, delaying, distracting, disabling while still trying to genuine kill Barnes deader than dead.

Steve Rogers got himself into this situation through his own actions, and he's frankly straight up refusing to acknowledge that he might've done something problematic.

And Steve appears at that point to be ready to accept any consequences that are coming his way. He's a little melancholy but seems fine with it. Though the end of the movie sort of wrecks that I's agree. Frankly it sounds like you'd be happy with the end from the comic. Wherein Cap realises that the principle is not worth the fights that are happening, surrenders to Iron Man and is arrested.

Kind of a sucky end to a Captain America movie though.

In fact it wasn't the US Gov. restricting Wanda's movement. It was Tony having a quiet word with Vision. She hadn't been charged with anything, they had no legal authority to hold her.

This is empathically wrong. As the movie goes some ways to point out, Wanda Maximoff is not a US citizen and does not have a visum. She has no legal grounds to be in the United States at all. Presumably she was tolerated by the government because Stark was pulling favours (AGAIN), but she hasn't signed the Accords and she's a walking talking WMD that just the other day blew up half a building full of people. Just confining her to Avengers campus until the frankly chaotic and rapidly evolving situation in Europe is sorted out is a perfectly reasonable response.

That's an assumption that Stark was pulling strings for her. So if she's illegally in the country. Deport her. If she blew up some people, charge her with the relevant crime. (not sure what it would be manslaughter by superheroic negligence?) If she broke the accords charge her with that. (she hasn't at that stage. It's okay not to sign so long as she doesn't do any superheroics)

Tony does nothing. He doesn't even tell her he wants to keep a low profile. He sics Vision her to keep her in a guilded cage. I stick by that description. It's not due process or anything like it. Are we supposed to like Tony because he'll bend the rules but only on his terms?

Ross is more than an asshole. He's a villain. He's a Hulk villain. In the Incredible Hulk he flat out says Banner and Hulk are the property of the US Government. That's how he sees metahumans and superheroes. They don't have human rights. He threatens Tony with jail not for breaking the law, just for failing to apprehend Steve.

And Stark obviously realizes how much of an empty bullshit threat that is considering how he treats Ross afterwards. Ross can say whatever he likes, he's clearly a raging asshole and occasionally a villain (much like - shock, horror - the Winter Soldier), that doesn't stop him from making a salient point every once in a blue moon. There's also no real indication as far as I can see that it would be Ross calling the shots on the Avengers with the Accords in play - he's the US SecState, I find it hard to come up with a reason why that job would fall to him.[/quote]

Not sure what the reference to the winter soldier implies. Bucky is a villain because he;s brainwashed. Ross is a villain because he's a raging arsehole who sees the metahumans as his property.

It doesn't make sense given it's supposed to be a UN thing but Ross is clearly in charge of enforcing the accords (through Stark) throughout the movie.

As to the Accords, we later see in Agents of Shield, it involves continual monitoring of all metahumans/inhumans, not just those signed up to superhero work. We see does take some effort to get metahuman activity approved by the UN council. (SHIELD ignores it most of the time when using their 'assets') and we see the Registry getting leaked to hate groups and used to murder innocent people. Not a reflection of the film either way, just food for thought.

When Bucky is arrested Martin Freeman's Ross (Everett Ross an unrelated Black Panther character) scoffs at the idea of Bucky getting a lawyer, you know, due process.

What actually happens in that scene is that taskforce commander Everett Ross rolls his eyes at the people who made his life more difficult yet have the gall to recriminate him to his face for doing the job they tried to stop him from doing. He even says that what will happen to Bucky is a psychological evaluation followed by extradition.[/quote]

Still, if you're being arrested and psychologically evaluated by the government who are started procedures to extradite you, are you not still entitled to legal representation?

We later see Zemo locked up in the exact same box with Everett gloating to him about never getting out. No lawyer or trial and illegal solitary confinement of a completely unpowered individual.

I'm amazed that in this instance the American military mangs are terrible because they are so gung-ho for international accountability.

That's not what I fucking said.

You didn't but like the film portrays Stark and the other pro-control people as antagonistic yet... ironically what they're pushing for isn't "we'll be judge judy and executioner" but like international accountability. Sure Thunderbolt Ross just wants to reign in these MAVERICK RENEGADES because he's a control freak who is a fear-mongering and frightened little man who persecuted Banner... but, maybe I'm twisting it a bit, but... it's still incredible how doing it via the UN is now his approach. Maybe his character evolved and instead of personal power tripping, after getting his ASS CHEWED OUT for the Hulk incidents, there's a part of him that genuinely wants to just prevent America and the rest of the world from being flattened by superhuman shenenigans (having his daughter hate him forever might help)? Still, he continues to be an asshole despite whatever change in orientation he's had?

Or not.

(EDIT: Still, it'd be a great... portrayal of hypocrisy and hellroads being good intentions-paved...)

Sure I guess the implications could be that while it's a de facto UN or Coalition or whatever thing, the US will try to muscle its way through to have de jure control of the superhumans. A multi-stage approach, use the UN facade and then just hard-power or soft-power the other factions and get them to play along with what the US says (who knows what Marvelverse China or Russia is like...). Even if Russia or China aren't cooperative, the Avengers under the UN, Avengers who are mostly US citizens, can then be manipulated by Ross and others "oh now you've gotta follow the UN but which part of the UN will you follow? Us the US or them the Rooskies?!"

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

Incidentally, now that I think about it, the fact that Everett Ross was all set up for a psychological debrief of James Barnes makes me doubt quite strongly that the taskforce sent to apprehend him really was just gonna Bin Laden him on the spot ('shoot on sight'). Seems to me they tried to make a good faith attempt at nonlethal apprehension first - supported by the fact that the grenades that came through the windows were concussion types, not frags. The soldiers also didn't open fire until they encountered heavy resistance.

Yup. This is what I mean by 'i agree with oversight but not what we saw in the movie'. If this system set up was reasonable then cool. Another reason not to railroad it over the Avengers in 2 days and expect them to read and understand what looks like a few hundred pages at least of legalise and expect them to sign up to the legal binding consequences.

That's fair, but no-one forced them to sign it right away. In fact no-one forced them to sign it at all, they could just wash their hands of it and walk away - Hawkeye did (until he didn't, that is). It was the signatory countries that were meeting at the UN, the Avengers themselves had all the time in the world to consider their options.

Also I still think it's fair to believe this was brewing for some time and the Avengers just ignored it. International treaties of phone book thickness don't come about in two days. They must've been working on a framework for some time previously.

Nitpick. Bucky was running. Steve was chasing and trying to stop Black Panther from killing him.

That's fair, but he didn't exactly try to stop Bucky when they were beating their way through German commandos either. And he found plenty of time and breath to repeatedly warn Barnes not to kill any of them.

By throwing a fit you mean. Refuse the compromise and then apparently resign himself to the consequences? He only starts shit in the compound when it's clear Zemo is up to something.

He is a horrible snarky piece of shit in that scene though. The lend lease/war profiteering bit was pointless dickery. He still was willing to compromise to an extent though.

Obviously I'm to an extent exaggerating my support of Tony Stark here, but I genuinely don't see Rogers trying to compromise in that scene. He knows Stark is trying to do the right thing, he's a WW2 soldier who should have an incling about the importance of international consensus and what happens when you just ignore it, he knows Stark's hangups about his dad - hell I bet at this point he at least has a pretty strong suspicion about Barnes' involvement in the death of the Starks - and he goes there anyway.

Does that really read to you as Rogers trying to compromise? Because it honestly to me seems like Rogers is stubbornly clinging to his idea of how the world should work when faced with overwhelming evidence of how it does work.

Now granted there was that whole 'no, YOU move' thing earlier, but I just cannot accept that as anything more than the pithy wisdom it is. It sounds good but it's really just as dumb a line as 'ONLY SITHS DEAL IN ABSOLUTES'. Zemo could've said the same damn thing in his conversation with T'Challa and it would've sounded properly sinister - because it's absolutist crap.

I don't remember Stark engaging with him at the airport. He shouts him down when he tries to explain about Zemo. And then says 'you're going to come with us because it's us that's asking.' That's about it. And Steve is operating under time constraints here. He can't wait to sort it out with Tony or wait for evidence to turn up or loose time because Zemos already on the way to the supersoldiers.

Stark's patience at that point is obviously wearing thin, but he's still giving Rogers the option to come in and deal with the situation like civilized people - and Rogers decides he instead wants to fight it out.

The immediacy of the threat is also highly overrated. Zemo isn't a teleporting supervillain. He can't even fly. He's a skilled special operator sure, but in the end he still has to sneak out of Germany and travel to bumfuck, Siberia whilst the target of an international manhunt. He can't do that overnight. Now granted at this point the Avengers cannot be fully sure that Zemo isn't part of a bigger conspiracy, but the movie goes some ways to prove that the situation wasn't all that urgent because after the airport fight there's enough time to mop up, put the international criminal elements of the erstwhile Avengers on the Raft, have Tony Stark fly out there on a helicopter, and then from it all the way to Siberia in his Iron Man suit - to arrive at the same time Steve and Bucky do, which isn't that long after Zemo.

Yup. Again, I find this totally understandable on both sides. (When's a good time to tell someone your best friend murdered their parents.)

There is no good time, but the right time is: immediately after you find out. Because friends don't keep something of that magnitude a secret from each other. The longer you keep it a secret, the bigger an issue it is when it does come out. If Rogers had told Stark earlier, and given him enough time to deal with the shock and enough information to assimilate the fact that Barnes is a brainwashed Manchurian candidate, I'm confident Stark could've dealt with it without going full murderbot.

And Steve appears at that point to be ready to accept any consequences that are coming his way. He's a little melancholy but seems fine with it. Though the end of the movie sort of wrecks that I's agree. Frankly it sounds like you'd be happy with the end from the comic. Wherein Cap realises that the principle is not worth the fights that are happening, surrenders to Iron Man and is arrested.

Kind of a sucky end to a Captain America movie though.

Honestly I think the end of the movie works well given how the movie goes some ways to explain it's a conflict between two good people over nuances of righteousness, I just feel Rogers' apology could've been more sincere because I feel he fucked up far more than Stark did. Rogers could've done any number of things to turn his ship around without compromising his morals, but he just couldn't deal with the fact that "he's an international assassin but he's my friend" isn't a winning argument. If he'd set aside his seething obsession with Barnes for just one minute and engaged with the people trying to make the world a safer and more organized place chances are Barnes would be in that American psych ward right now, instead of in a Wakandan freezer. Steve Rogers would still be one of the good guys, and the Avengers could be helping a ton of people instead of being scattered and on the run. Instead he was convinced that only he could save Barnes, and that lead him down a path of bullfuckery that there was no recovering from.

Meanwhile all that Stark did wrong was... He could've phrased his arguments a little better? He maybe could've stood up to Ross a little sooner and a little more publicly? That's really about it.

That's an assumption that Stark was pulling strings for her. So if she's illegally in the country. Deport her. If she blew up some people, charge her with the relevant crime. (not sure what it would be manslaughter by superheroic negligence?) If she broke the accords charge her with that. (she hasn't at that stage. It's okay not to sign so long as she doesn't do any superheroics)

Oh, come on. Like Steve wouldn't have thrown his tantrum if he'd learned Wanda had been deported back to Sokovia! What's Tony Stark to do here, in your opinion? Just let her fuck about despite all the shit going down?

Like it or not, as long as she doesn't sign the Accords her status in the USA is uncertain. The US government would be well within its rights to deport her, OR for that matter to detain her as an illegal alien. Instead all they're asking of her is that for the duration of the crisis raging in Europe please don't wander off the giant resort that is the Avengers campus, then afterwards we'll figure it out together. That's literally it, and Steve whines about internment. Fuuuck him!

Not sure what the reference to the winter soldier implies. Bucky is a villain because he;s brainwashed. Ross is a villain because he's a raging arsehole who sees the metahumans as his property. It doesn't make sense given it's supposed to be a UN thing but Ross is clearly in charge of enforcing the accords (through Stark) throughout the movie.

I don't think that's what's going on. Ross is the US Secretary of State, and as such it presumably falls to him to prevent Americans from, oh say, blowing up buildings full of people in Africa - and deal with the unpleasant consequences when they do. He may be an asshole with some pretty reprehensible views, but I can't say he doesn't have a right to be grumpy with the Avengers circa Civil War. There's nothing in the movie that says he runs whatever organization the Accords spawn - if anything I'd say Everett Ross is probably the person doing that. Thunderbolt Ross just deals with the Americans who break the Accords - harshly, for sure, but them's the breaks.

As to the Accords, we later see in Agents of Shield, it involves continual monitoring of all metahumans/inhumans, not just those signed up to superhero work.

I'm honestly not that interested in stuff extraneous to the MCU. I haven't watched AoS, and am not planning to.

Still, if you're being arrested and psychologically evaluated by the government who are started procedures to extradite you, are you not still entitled to legal representation?

Ross doesn't say he's not entitled to a lawyer. He just says it's funny that Steve Rogers - himself now guilty of breaking international law - should make that remark in an accusatory tone. Or at least that's how I'm reading that scene.

We later see Zemo locked up in the exact same box with Everett gloating to him about never getting out. No lawyer or trial and illegal solitary confinement of a completely unpowered individual.

There's no way that's an interrogation tactic of a hostile enemy! We must take it as gospel truth!

"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia."- Frank Castle

It's a cowardly form of politics to use my spouse to beat me. Instead I shall drop the beat!

Fuck it, you're basically right Siege. and I'm basically wrong. Whenever I get into this argument I end up giving Steve more credit that he's worth. I feel his action are understandable given his relationship with Bucky and recent loss of Peggy. I can understand exactly why he's not reasonable on that score. But you've proven he's going about things wrong and dangerously.

Likewise you've done a good job at sticking up for Tony. But still, he swapped sides, that one of the weird bits about Civil War it takes Tony a rebel non-conformist and but him on the side of authority. It just seems hypocritical. The film does it's best to justify it and suceeds. Tony talking about his willingness to change circa Iron Man 1 really helps. But I can't escape the feeling he's for the accords for a long as and as far he wants to. You've talked about him giving good deals to Steve and Wanda but I was making the point he's breaking the rules he's trying to enforce there. I think by the end of the movie Vision and Rhodey are probably the only ones who haven't broken the accords. (maybe Spidey, his status in the accords is very murky)

I get the feeling as soon as the Accords inconvenienced Tony personally. He'd do what he does to Ross at the end. Snark and ignore them. While holding everyone else to account. I could easily be wrong.

Civil War jumps through a lot of hoops to get well.. the Civil War to happen. One of those I'm least pleased about is the happy ending override for Ant-Man and Age of Ultron. Lang is a criminal again. And after all they went through in Age of Ultron. The very point of the climax being 'avoid civilian casualties' is ignored in favour of there was 'massive collateral damage'. (it is foreshadowed in Ant-Man though)

Likewise, the friends-fighting bit of Civil War is undermined by the fact that Steve/Tony tension was a big part of both Avengers films. They never felt like the two close friends they could be forced to fight.

Sorry this sounds like conceding then going back to it. Just MCU thoughts.

Fuck it, you're basically right Siege. and I'm basically wrong. Whenever I get into this argument I end up giving Steve more credit that he's worth.

C'mon, don't give up now that we're having fun !

I feel his action are understandable given his relationship with Bucky and recent loss of Peggy. I can understand exactly why he's not reasonable on that score. But you've proven he's going about things wrong and dangerously.

I absolutely agree. In fact in terms of characters I really dig that Steve Rogers' right-wrong white bread apple pie worldview has consequences that are sometimes right (Winter Soldier) and sometimes wrong (Civil War). That he's the same man with the same views sticking up in the same way sometimes means he's the hero of the hour, and sometimes an international fugitive depending on the day and the context is really cool conceptually, and if the Russo brothers came up with that deliberately then I applaud them for it.

Likewise you've done a good job at sticking up for Tony. But still, he swapped sides, that one of the weird bits about Civil War it takes Tony a rebel non-conformist and but him on the side of authority. It just seems hypocritical. The film does it's best to justify it and suceeds. Tony talking about his willingness to change circa Iron Man 1 really helps. But I can't escape the feeling he's for the accords for a long as and as far he wants to. You've talked about him giving good deals to Steve and Wanda but I was making the point he's breaking the rules he's trying to enforce there. I think by the end of the movie Vision and Rhodey are probably the only ones who haven't broken the accords. (maybe Spidey, his status in the accords is very murky)

I get the feeling as soon as the Accords inconvenienced Tony personally. He'd do what he does to Ross at the end. Snark and ignore them. While holding everyone else to account. I could easily be wrong.

No, I'm totally with you on that one . Like I said, I think there's situations where Tony Stark just cannot help himself, and that would be one of them, as no doubt a near future movie will prove. But much as I dig Captain America's straightforward and fairly unmoving moral compass I like even more that Tony Stark grows as a person despite his huge personality flaws and hypocritical streak. I happen to think he's in the right in Civil War, but I don't doubt that if he's pushed too far he'll go do that whatever he feels must be done and damn the rules path exactly like Steve Rogers did. (Then again, wouldn't anyone?)

Still though, when he's faced with the people the Avengers caused to be killed at least Stark has the good manner to be shocked. Steve just goes 'eh sometimes you can't save them all'. I know he's a soldier and he's trying to comfort somone that's distraught when he says it but come on man. Be an actual person.

Likewise, the friends-fighting bit of Civil War is undermined by the fact that Steve/Tony tension was a big part of both Avengers films. They never felt like the two close friends they could be forced to fight.

I feel that's a strength though, that they're very different personalities with very different approaches to problem solving who've come to respect each other - and then have a falling out that's more or less inevitable once they draw different lessons from different experiences.

Stark starts off arrogant ('succesfully privatized world peace!'), then sees the damage that being a loose cannon causes and actively seeks some sense of accountability (even though, once he has it, he inevitably chafes at it and seek to dodge it). Rogers meanwhile starts off as a loyal soldier who finds out the hard way that authority cannot always be trusted and therefore decides that the only assurance he has of doing the right thing is if he follows his own conscience.

the Siege of yesteryear wrote:Something that Steve maybe should've done with his friends, because clearly Hawkeye doesn't understand it even after he finds his ass in prison.

Isn't that pretty much total bullshit though, coming from Hawkeye? "Criminals didn't used to mean me", he says. Bitch you were an enforcer-secret agent-spy for SHIELD, that used to hang out with reformed Soviet assassins and shit, did you get hit on the head in Sokovia and forget all about that? Your ass should know all about international law and what it means to get caught on the wrong side of the line!

"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia."- Frank Castle

It's a cowardly form of politics to use my spouse to beat me. Instead I shall drop the beat!

I feel his action are understandable given his relationship with Bucky and recent loss of Peggy. I can understand exactly why he's not reasonable on that score. But you've proven he's going about things wrong and dangerously.

I absolutely agree. In fact in terms of characters I really dig that Steve Rogers' right-wrong white bread apple pie worldview has consequences that are sometimes right (Winter Soldier) and sometimes wrong (Civil War).That he's the same man with the same views sticking up in the same way sometimes means he's the hero of the hour, and sometimes an international fugitive depending on the day and the context is really cool conceptually, and if the Russo brothers came up with that deliberately then I applaud them for it.

One of the reason I'm very interested in Infinity War (which just for the number of characters in it I'm worried about), how are they going to handle the Accords in that? Is it going to be handwaved pretty quickly. Or is Thanos going to kick a team of registration Avengers up and down the country before Tony calls in Steve's team for back up. Is it going to get the payoff it sort of needs or just sort getting ignored under massive cosmic threat?

Still though, when he's faced with the people the Avengers caused to be killed at least Stark has the good manner to be shocked. Steve just goes 'eh sometimes you can't save them all'. I know he's a soldier and he's trying to comfort somone that's distraught when he says it but come on man. Be an actual person.

That's quite a time later though and he was He's cleared shocked and stunned at the time but doing his best to keep control and get emergency services there. Wanda is also horrified and given her backstory with the bomb in her house... yeah she should be.

Likewise, the friends-fighting bit of Civil War is undermined by the fact that Steve/Tony tension was a big part of both Avengers films. They never felt like the two close friends they could be forced to fight.

I feel that's a strength though, that they're very different personalities with very different approaches to problem solving who've come to respect each other - and then have a falling out that's more or less inevitable once they draw different lessons from different experiences.

Stark starts off arrogant ('succesfully privatized world peace!'), then sees the damage that being a loose cannon causes and actively seeks some sense of accountability (even though, once he has it, he inevitably chafes at it and seek to dodge it). Rogers meanwhile starts off as a loyal soldier who finds out the hard way that authority cannot always be trusted and therefore decides that the only assurance he has of doing the right thing is if he follows his own conscience.

That is cool. I guess I feel Age Of Ultron could have done more to sell the 'very different but friends' aspect. I actually like AoU and I like CW but from an overall perspective I don't think the MCU flows from one to the other very well.

Random aside: Do you buy Steve's line about not knowing it was Bucky specifically? Does that make a difference morally?

Another random thought Black Widow. She gets the stick for hypocrisy Stark avoids in the film. But what goes unmentioned is she was right there with Steve when Zola drops the bombshell about Tony's parents. She also presumably didn't tell him. Did they collude? Both not tell him independently?

Eta; one last thing. I promise. One of the items being shipped from Avengers Tower was a new shield for Cap. I wonder when that was being developed. Before or after CW. And what it means for Tonys feelings towards Steve.

the Siege of yesteryear wrote:Something that Steve maybe should've done with his friends, because clearly Hawkeye doesn't understand it even after he finds his ass in prison.

Isn't that pretty much total bullshit though, coming from Hawkeye? "Criminals didn't used to mean me", he says. Bitch you were an enforcer-secret agent-spy for SHIELD, that used to hang out with reformed Soviet assassins and shit, did you get hit on the head in Sokovia and forget all about that? Your ass should know all about international law and what it means to get caught on the wrong side of the line!

Hawkeye should probably expect to be disavowed and murdered in some third world prison. Being locked up in a supertech slammer is step up for him!

Poor, Barton though, the MCU seems to have no overall plan or idea what to do with him. Cap's team is handwaved as looking out for Wanda but it feels more a need to make up the numbers than anything.

He deserves a solo movie. Or at least a him and Black Widow shared feature. And tangentially I'm still pissed that starting half a decade behind the DCEU hit a heroine movie first. But then they do have basically the most popular superheroine ever. And one who is not a distaff counterpart of a male hero.

One of the reason I'm very interested in Infinity War (which just for the number of characters in it I'm worried about), how are they going to handle the Accords in that? Is it going to be handwaved pretty quickly. Or is Thanos going to kick a team of registration Avengers up and down the country before Tony calls in Steve's team for back up. Is it going to get the payoff it sort of needs or just sort getting ignored under massive cosmic threat?

One imagines that 'invasion by cosmic warlord' is one of the clauses that triggers the Accords and gives the Avengers carte blanche to handle it. Which would show that the Accords work! (Or at least that they do in a cosmic warlord invasion scenario.)

I'm also not quite sure what a team composed of super soldier man and bow and arrow guy are going to accomplish versus an infinity stone empowered Thanos - at least with Tony I could sort of see him bringing out his Apocalypse Suit that holds up for a brief while, like he did with Hulk. What's Captain America going to do, armwrestle a titan?

That is cool. I guess I feel Age Of Ultron could have done more to sell the 'very different but friends' aspect. I actually like AoU and I like CW but from an overall perspective I don't think the MCU flows from one to the other very well.

It's commonly agreed I think that Age of Ultron is one of the weakest of the Marvel movies. It tries to do too much, and appears more interested in setting up the next movies that being a fully fleshed out story on its own. There are interesting ideas in there but it fails to execute them well. Which is annoying because it's a pretty crucial link between the 'old' movies and Avengers on one hand and the newest batch on the other. If AoU had been better (not even very different, just... better) a lot of those concerns I think would've been alleviated.

And yeah there's plenty bits where the MCU can be clearly seen to be making it up on the spot: in the first Iron Man movie SHIELD is obviously a very new organization that doesn't even have its own acronym; then a few movies down the line it has a giant headquarters in DC and a history that goes back to WW2. You mean to tell me Pepper Potts, who essentially runs one of the biggest weapons manufacturers on the planet, had never heard of that SHIELD?

Random aside: Do you buy Steve's line about not knowing it was Bucky specifically? Does that make a difference morally?

I think Rogers was making excuses. He knew about HYDRA's involvement, he knew who the guy was they used for that sort of mission, if he wasn't fully certain by the time Civil War comes around it's solely because he decided not to look into it very hard. And he didn't tell Stark about HYDRA's role in his parents' death in more general terms either, I should point out.

Another random thought Black Widow. She gets the stick for hypocrisy Stark avoids in the film. But what goes unmentioned is she was right there with Steve when Zola drops the bombshell about Tony's parents. She also presumably didn't tell him. Did they collude? Both not tell him independently?

I'm not fully certain Black Widow picks up on the significance of Zola's slideshow but if she did - keeping secrets is second nature to her, it's more or less to be expected she doesn't tell anyone about anything. I don't think it's even deliberate with her, it's simply reflexive.

Eta; one last thing. I promise. One of the items being shipped from Avengers Tower was a new shield for Cap. I wonder when that was being developed. Before or after CW. And what it means for Tonys feelings towards Steve.

Probably before, I'd think.

Poor, Barton though, the MCU seems to have no overall plan or idea what to do with him. Cap's team is handwaved as looking out for Wanda but it feels more a need to make up the numbers than anything.

He deserves a solo movie. Or at least a him and Black Widow shared feature. And tangentially I'm still pissed that starting half a decade behind the DCEU hit a heroine movie first. But then they do have basically the most popular superheroine ever. And one who is not a distaff counterpart of a male hero.

That's sort of a different discussion but I do think that shows a glaring weakness in te early phases of the MCU: even when they really got rolling and were raking in billions of dollars they couldn't get their shit together enough to put one of the women front and center. The nearest we got was Winter Soldier; otherwise the tree and the raccoon (incidentally, both male) had their movie first. Their two movies first, in fact. Charming.

Then Wonder Woman comes around and one of the main thoughts in my head when I came out of the cinema was: was that so hard?

I do kinda like Hawkeye as a character who consistently gets tangled up in situations that should be far beyond him, but also consistently punches way above his weight class. He sort of gets underestimated, a lot, which kinda makes sense when he's just bow and arrow guy, but for all the fact that he should be getting flattened in these encounters the fact is that so far he's not.

Part of that is the MCU's tendency to pull everyone down to the same level so that Captain America can armwrestle a high-tech flying armor that in earlier movies shrugged off tank shots and Thor's hammer (Rogers in my opinion really shouldn't be able to do that, at all). But even so, Hawkeye's crazy assortment of gadget arrows has proven to be useful in more than one occasion!

"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia."- Frank Castle

It's a cowardly form of politics to use my spouse to beat me. Instead I shall drop the beat!

I guess the whole underlooked "plucky sorta-everyman meatbag with Special Forces/Secret Agent-level training and some slight superhuman boons" can make a big damn difference if the cosmic hammer/radiation monster/ultratech killsuits are pre-occupied (and too busy emphasizing their overpowered stuff) is the charming thing with Hawkeye and even Cap. And Black Widow, plus her expertise in the asymmetric espionage aspects (same with Hawkeye too). Heck, it's the same with Falcon I guess since his gear isn't unique, right? It's more than implied that it's something available to US military elite units like SOAR (or Nightstalkers, those heli-aviators in Black Hawk Down) and other para-rescuers? Like, Falcon was just some dude Cap bumped into while jogging!

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

Yeah the jet pack Sam gets in Winter Soldier is something he used in the military. Though I think there was a line there was only one left. Or only one that was nickable offscreen or something.

That one was destroyed in WS. The ones he uses in Ant-Man/AoU/CW are upgrade ones. Probably StarkTech in fact.

As to Hawkeye and Black Widow and Cap's uses against a gauntleted Thanos. probably not much. Never read the comics but I imagine he'll have swarms of mooks to distract the Avengers/Guardians if nothing else.

As for engaging Iron Man. He really shouldn't. But Tony was holding back even to almost the very end. And he makes a lot of uses of the shield to do the real damage. They've been amping up the superness of his supersoldier with each film. Witness him kicking humvees and stopping choppers in CW.

He's still shouldn't be able to win a fist fight with a sexy tank though.

Despite all its flaws, I have a soft spot for Valerian. I'll place it in the vicinity of the Hitchhiker's Guide adaptation, or Speed Racer or Pacific Rim. IMO the gutsy attempt and the good parts outweigh the bad bits so it didn't Jupiter Ascending. It's very imbalanced though, if only Luc Besson had a stronger story or if it had better performances by the protags, it could've been another Guardians of the Galaxy. Still, points for effort, for trying to be not-Hollywood.

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

Yes. Seriously, it's the best movie I've seen in a long time. Best sci-fi movie since Arrival, I'd say. I love everything about the new Blade Runner: the way it takes its time to tell a story, the way the shots linger in a way that makes it feel like a much older movie, the way it respects the first Blade Runner and its ambiguities, the way it doesn't infantilize its audience but trusts you're intelligent enough to piece together enough of the past, how it creates an old, lived-in world that genuinely feels like the future's been through some shit... It expands and inverts some of the what-does-it-mean-to-be-human themes of the previous film in an interesting way, expands the scope of the world and in doing so makes some poignant points out our treatment of the planet without hammering it in Avatar-style, and I even ended up really liking Harrison Ford here, which was probably the single element I was the most hesitant about but he too knocks it out of the park. Also it looks fuckin' gorgeous. That's almost a given considering it's Roger Deakins behind the camera, but it's not just the way the camera moves - all the visuals are stunning, it feels like it's pushing the way a sci-fi movie can look almost as much as the original did.

If you like sci-fi movies you're doing yourself a major disservice by not seeing this in cinema's.

"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia."- Frank Castle

It's a cowardly form of politics to use my spouse to beat me. Instead I shall drop the beat!

Blade Runner 2049 is a worthy successor and immerses the viewer in a breathtaking and intense experience. Denis Villeneuve is once again superb and Ryan Gosling delivers something that's straight outta Drive or Only God Forgives. Aaaand the soundtrack is great, Zimmer and his partner did well and blended Arrival-esque guttural unsettling alienating background sounds with Vangelis' original strange techno-jazz tunes, it's an oddly suitable combination and adds to the immersion, matching the visuals of this film (THEY USE MINIATURES!) that are worthy follow ups to the original and show how to push the boundaries of sci-fi and fictional filmmaking and effects in ways that aren't Avatar or Transforminators. The story's as good as we're gonna get, the worldbuilding is wonderful and doesn't spoonfeed you with infodumps, shows how utterly messed up their anachronistic techno-fossilized eco-ruinated future is yet leaves enough unsaid and unshown for your imagination (like a good story, visual or written)... my only gripe isn't even necessarily a bad thing, it's just that the larger scale of this movie is different than the focused relatively limited scale of the previous movie that gave it its intimacy (and made it cult film nerd bait). Villenueve's mumblecore style dialog is also something that takes getting used to, especially compared to the terseness nigh crypticness of the original's lines. I want Nicolas Winding Refn to do sci-fi now.

So it's an intelligent, hypercompetently-done, respectful and revering followup, yet ain't a cheap poser rebootquelmake made by nuance-less beaters of dead horses and cow-cashers. Yes, studios want to make money, but they picked a technician, a modern day Ridley Scott or Kubrik, rather than a Michael Bay or even a JJ Abrams. So... thank the god of biomechanics.

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

Saw Kingsman: Golden Circle this evening. Very much liked it. It was just over the top fun the whole way. A couple of missteps as others have pointed out. Killing Roxy was annoying but expected from the trailer. Likewise bringing back Harry with barely a hitch. (I'd hoped there would be a twist there.) Really, bringing back the mentor gives you a chance to show the student surpassing them which is not the case. Hart is awesome, perfectly analyses the situation with Whiskey, kicks arse, takes names etc. (Maybe the next film?)

The thing is it's very hard to hold anything against the film when it's so silly and intentionally over the top. Merlin's death was standard fare as they come and kind of annoying. We get one mentor back, kill the other. But it's done so frigging well. Though henchmen, you know about the mines, you have guns. Why do you approach with in blast radius?

On a "patriotism" level, while it eventually came down to Harry and Eggsy they seemed to be shilling for the Statesman a lot. The ratio of two Kingsmen to engage one Statesman annoyed me.

Goldblum: Ragnarok was delightful fun, lighthearted and zany in depicting what befalls that storied home of the Norse heroes, the mythical realm of Goldblumpopolis - or is it Goldblumheim? Goldblumgard? Blending old school retro eye-searing sci-fi aesthetics with a tongue-in-cheek take on Goldblumnordic lore.

Okay, in all seriousness, yes it was campy preposterous fun and it's delightful to see faithful renditions of Kirby's designs, especially the Goldblumguard's preposterous helmets.

But... the 80s arcade bloop bloop soundtrack was perfect for Planet Goldblum but c'mon guise, don't use it for Asgard... oh and it also has the same faults as the Guardians of the Galaxy films, the same strengths and weaknesses, in using camp and perhaps a bit overmuch humor and references to supplement the story or the premise because of their hesitation to commit to the premise of sci-fi or sci-fantasy. Yes, they're good fun but that hesitation to tackle serious stuff in something called Ragnarok, mangs? Relying overmuch on cheap laughs won't get you a goddamn Empire Strikes Back, hhhnggg.

Still, the film was much fun and we finally get to see Goldblum in space. So I'm satisfied with Marvel's latest addition to the Goldblum Cinematic Universe.

"Sometimes Shroomy I wonder if your imagination actually counts as some sort of war crime." - FROD

I massively enjoyed Ragnarok. I suppose there's something critical to be said about it's relentless pun-fueled pace, even when there was Serious Stuff Afoot, but I loved every glorious moment of it. I just dig that a movie about the freaking Norse god of thunder simultaneously takes the main character in its stride and yet at the same time doesn't skip a beat saying 'you know this whole premise is fairly silly, right?'.

I've broadly come to the conclusion that I don't really care about Serious Business in my superhero movie. That doesn't mean I don't want my characters to make sense, or for a sense of consistency between franchise movies, but at the end of the day I know what I'm in the theater for, and it isn't what draws me to Dunkirk. I'm here to be entertained with a story about the main man/character engaging in whacky hijinks and getting himself out of crazy situations. That's what I found engaging about Iron Man, it's what was good about Avengers, and it's what makes Ragnarok work. The main accusation (if it is even that) I've seen is also voiced by Shroom:

Shroom wrote: Yes, they're good fun but that hesitation to tackle serious stuff in something called Ragnarok, mangs?

And I have to ask in response: what are you looking for in Marvel movies? Or even in Thor movies? Because there's been a fair bunch of them before; two in case of Thor movies and however freaking many in case of Marvel as a whole. By now I'd think people would know what they're getting into. I don't quite understand people who seem to think that they would get some SRS BSNSS here. It's a Thor movie. It's a Marvel movie. It's a Taika Waititi movie. Honestly, what did you expect?

Asgard was always a silly place. From the first movie it was this. If anything this movie gave weight to the fact that it's a place full of fairly regular people who die and fear and suffer and empathize with each other much like any regular human. No other Thor movie did that before this one. If you thought its destruction was light-hearted - well, I suppose in a way you are right, but it still showed the consequences for a whole bunch of Asgardian dudes and dudettes who are now intergalactically homeless. What more did you expect? As far as I'm concerned your Serious Business is right there: an entire people rendered homeless and vulnerable. What do you want, for the movie to dwell on it? What good does that do? What more does that add? What are you looking for in a movie like this to begin with?

I'm not going into Ragnarok with the expectation it'll show me the horror of reality like, I dunno, Waltz with Bashir. It's as far as I'm concerned its own thing, to be judged on its own merits, on what it is and what it wants to be. And in that it succeeds, massively.

"Nick Fury. Old-school cold warrior. The original black ops hardcase. Long before I stepped off a C-130 at Da Nang, Fury and his team had set fire to half of Asia."- Frank Castle

It's a cowardly form of politics to use my spouse to beat me. Instead I shall drop the beat!